rolldev_inspector_traces

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description does carry the key safety signal itself: "Read-only: never changes the environment." It also discloses the output shape (one line per trace, cost split by category). It says nothing about ordering defaults, volume expectations, or whether traces are sampled, so it is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero padding, leading with the action and the result format and closing with the safety constraint. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a filterable list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the read-only guarantee and the rough return shape, which is the minimum needed. It still leaves gaps on result ordering behavior beyond the sort parameter and what a truncated preview looks like when save_output_to_file is set.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including sort, min_ms, route, and save_output_to_file is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("List recent PHP traces") plus the shape of each result (one line with per-category cost split). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling rolldev_inspector_trace (singular), so an agent must infer that this is the list view versus the detail view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"List recent PHP traces" implies a discovery/overview use case, and the sibling names hint at a trace-detail alternative. However, the description never says when to pick this over rolldev_inspector_trace, inspector_hotspots, or inspector_request, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.